From the Daily Mail (UK):

At the age of 27 this young woman (Toni Vernelli) at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

I agree completely that people of Ms. Vernelli’s political/social proclivities should voluntarily be sterilzed.  In fact, I hoper that it becomes vogue, and a full fad/trend for such folks.

Is there any way that we could convince Lawyers to go the same route?

Shelled out my $20 (the signifigant other thought it looked interesting as well) last night for The Mist.

I will admit up front that I had read the Novella, and was more curious as to how the story translated to the big screen.  I had read reviews that it was well done, and even the orioginal author, Stephen King, had spoken very highly of it (rare for an author to approve of an adaptation).

Overall, the movie follows the book fairly well.  I was a tad disappointed that the first portion of the novella, which really set the mood, was truncated to about 5 minutes.

The central part of the story (which is really about how thin (and fragile) the veneer of civilization really is) is well done, and pretty creepy.

The special effects beasties are OK by todays CGI standards, but not revolutionary.

I was, I admit, shocked by the ending.  It is far different from the Novella, and casts an entirely different complection on the morality tale.  Sorry, no spoiler here. 

All in all, I recommend it as worth seeing, though I think I would wait until is hits DVD or Satellite/Cable. 

COMING SOON:  Beowulf 3D!

The Washington Times reports on a new revelation that, indeed, the Democrat Party is the party of the RICH.

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who lives in the Seattle or Portland areas. Indeed, we are reminded of it every election cycle.

My personal theory is that these people (the Money behind the Democrat Party, if not the foot-soliders), are, to a minor extent, Old Money (not so much on the Left Coast as on the East) who have little or no concept of the value of Work and sacrifice.  But far more so New Money, that DO understand the value of work and personal sacrifice - but little else.  Unfortunately, most have been raised and indoctrinated through the schools, and worse, Higher Education, to be souless, amoral, and with only progressive oriented ethics.  Since they are spending a great deal of their time amassing, and maintaining, wealth and possessions (se McMansion), the guilt-load becomes almost unbearable, and they must enlist others to “do good for them” (see Affluenza).

In steps the Democrat Party, and their affiliated hangers on and fellow travellers, willing to take their money to support the Party’s goal of taking more of everyones money, to DO GOOD.

The most egregious case is Warren Buffett, constantly complaining that his Taxes aren’t high enough.  Strange, since I am unaware of ANY law preventing him from paying MORE than the required amount of taxes - or from donating his entire wealth to the government - or better, directly to charity.  What he really means is, everyone should pay more taxes, because the Government is a better arbiter of where your money gets spent than you are.